John C Klensin allegedly wrote on 1/9/09 11:11 AM: > > --On Friday, January 09, 2009 8:36 -0500 Scott Brim > <swb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Hi Eliot. >> >> I agree this is a problem ... but not one that we can solve >> yet. At this time the face-to-face meetings are still >> essential, and one cannot evaluate candidates without good >> knowledge of what an I* member's life is like at them. > > Scott, > > Part of the reason for the current requirements is exactly what > I think you are suggesting -- to raise the odds that Nomcom > members will actually know the candidates and have had the > opportunity to see them in action in some roles. But also that nomcom members have some clue to what the life of an IAB/IESG member is like. I don't see how you can possibly understand that without seeing it all in action at a face-to-face meeting. > However, my > impression from the outside is that the Nomcom is depending more > and more on questionnaires for potential candidates, requests > for written input from a variety of people, email requests to > candidates and others for information about specific issues and > perspectives, etc., and not on the prior knowledge of the Nomcom > members. > > If that impression is correct, then the requirement for Nomcom > members to have attended a lot of IETF meetings may be less > relevant than it was a decade or so ago, even though one might > reasonably require that any volunteer have a firm expectation of > being able to attend f2f Nomcom meetings, participate in f2f > interviews, etc. (i.e., attend several meetings in succession > even if their earlier participation was less dense). > > In addition, since Nomcoms seem to mostly evaluate and then > return incumbents (whether that is good or bad is a separate > issue; it is an observable fact), a case can be made that > evaluations from within the Nomcom about how I* members deal > with participants who do not routinely attend meetings could > actually enhance the Nomcom's effectiveness. That's a point, but it would argue for having a quota of people who had _not_ attended recent meetings on the nomcom, rather than just relaxing the current requirement. swb _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf